This article [J. Biomed. Opt. 17(6), 066018 (2012)] was originally published online on 6 June 2012 with errors Table 2 on p. 4. The corrected table is reprinted below.

Table 2

Clinical review result.

Confocal screening result

↓

↓

Histology screening result

Reviewer #1, Bar

Negative

Positive

→

Positive

0

50

→

Negative

23

2

Reviewer #2, Snaveley

Negative

Positive

→

Positive

0

50

→

Negative

22

3

In addition, the text discussing this table contained errors in the specificity percentage values for the reviewed results. The final paragraph of Sec. 5 has been corrected to read:

Table 2 shows the results of the clinical review. The two reviewers (Bar and Snaveley) evaluated all the confocal submosaics correctly except for two and three false positives, respectively. The calculated diagnostic value from Table 2 is 100% for sensitivity, and 92% and 88% for specificity for Bar and Snaveley, respectively.

Keywords/Phrases

Keywords

in

Remove

in

Remove

in

Remove

+ Add another field

Search In:

Proceedings

Volume

Journals +

Volume

Issue

Page

Journal of Applied Remote SensingJournal of Astronomical Telescopes Instruments and SystemsJournal of Biomedical OpticsJournal of Electronic ImagingJournal of Medical ImagingJournal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMSJournal of NanophotonicsJournal of Photonics for EnergyNeurophotonicsOptical EngineeringSPIE Reviews